Getting new iMac, which graphics?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by iJohnnyG, Mar 29, 2016.

  1. iJohnnyG macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Newcastle
    #1
    Hello,

    I know there has probably been hundreds of threads just like this and I've searched through many of them but I'm still at a loss to which one to get.
    Just what is the difference between the M380 and the M395?
     
  2. russofris macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2012
    #2
    I believe:

    Radeon R9 M395 1792 cores @ 834 MHz 256 Bit mem bus @ 5460 MHz
    Radeon R9 M380 768 cores @ 1000 MHz 128 Bit mem bus @ 6000 MHz

    While the performance difference can be debated, it's probably fair to say that the 395 has roughly double the horsepower compared to a 380.
     
  3. iJohnnyG thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Newcastle
    #3
    Cheers, went in store today and picked up M395 model.
     
  4. makrom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    #4
    Good choice, I really would only take the M380 if you don't care about GPU at all.
    Rough rule of thumbs for relative FPS:
    M395X: 100%
    M395: 90%
    M390: 80%
    M380: 40%

    Difference to M395X is bigger for situations where VRAM matters a lot.
     
  5. iJohnnyG thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Newcastle
    #5
    I wanted a 2TB model and wanted it for, store today so was almost forced to get that one. Ha
     
  6. Jackotai macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    #6
    please be ware 1GB Vram is used by the system without launching any application.
     
  7. Mookeh macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    #7
    Yes, because OS X is running the system at 5K. But even the slowest 380 does absolutely fine and the 395 is considerably faster.

    In fact, I'd argue the 395X isn't a good purchase at all, unless you have plenty of money to spare. Why? Because although it has 4GB memory, and this would come in handy when running games in 5K... you can't really run games at 5K. Even old games will run only at an"okay" pace (25-35fps). Yes, the 4GB comes in relatively handy in FCP X rendering, but for the same price you can get an I5 to I7 upgrade (30% instead of 10% improvement thanks to hyperthreading). In short; don't let people like this scare you into changing your purchase, as the 395 is the best bang for your buck and the double VRAM on the X doesn't actually render any significant differences.
     
  8. jacko777 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    #8
    It is depen
    it is depends on what you are looking at. If you do gaming, like witcher GTA fallout, whatever, it cram you abt 2GBvram in middle setting. If you want higher setting, it would be a definitely 3GVram or above. Some may go exceed 4gvram. I prefer a higher VRAM for the further.
     
  9. Mookeh macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    #9
    But the higher resolution textures that can use that extra VRAM are often loaded in at higher resolutions, which are in turn limited in framerate by other aspects of the card (shader count, etc.). The 395 and 395X are very close in specs, and the only major difference is the VRAM. That's touted as the selling point, but in practice the difference is negligible. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people who buy it are idiots. For some people and for some reasons it's a nice card. But I am reacting to people who think the 395X will make a major difference compared to the 395. It won't.
     
  10. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    Nice, that's the model I opted for and I've been extremely satisfied. Congrats :D
    --- Post Merged, Mar 31, 2016 ---
    That too was one of my main motivations, given the 2TB Fusion drive has 128GB flash storage (as opposed to 24GB on the 1TB model). The faster GPU is icing on the cake so to speak
     
  11. jacko777 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    #11
    Sorry, do you think 1080p and 1440p is a high resolution? I don't think so. However in these resolutions with high setting which require 3-4GBvram already. I can play witcher3 sleeping dogs and fallout 4 in 1080 with my 395x in almost max setting with around 60fps and abt 50 FPS in 1440p. Those setting request almost 4GB vram.
     
  12. Mookeh macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    #12
    Fallout 4's bottleneck isn't the memory. But to be fair, we're now heading into Bootcamp gaming territory. That's not what I responded to when someone recommended the 'X' instead, and no one talked about gaming or Bootcamp up until now. I admit that for Windows Bootcamp gamers it can make a difference, but considering OP didn't mention this, I'm assuming it's irrelevant for his purchase.
     
  13. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #13
    And why would you think that?
     
  14. JeffyTheQuik macrumors 68020

    JeffyTheQuik

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Location:
    Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
    #14
    My rule with Apple products:
    Always max it out, with the exception of RAM and HD.

    This will let you use it for 6+ years (My 2007 24in iMac is still chugging along with 6GB of RAM for the kids. I have upgraded the HD on it, which made it so Apple won't work on it, so I had to go to an Apple Partner to get the video card fixed.)
    My wife's 2008 iMac is struggling with 8GB of RAM and it was the bottom of the line one.

    Good choice!
     
  15. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #15
    MacTracker says that imac Early 2008 is limited to 6GB.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 31, 2016 ---
    The only video card upgrade that would definitely shout "future proof" would be a card that could meet or exceed the SteamVR requirements-- and none of the options available do that. The applications that need 4GB tomorrow will likely also need GPU resources in excess of what the m395x is capable of.
     
  16. JeffyTheQuik macrumors 68020

    JeffyTheQuik

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Location:
    Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
    #16
    Was there a later one in 2008? I looked on Mactracker and it supported 8GB. Crap... now I remember, mine is a 2008, and hers is a 2009, so I need to subtract 1 from the years old.
     
  17. makrom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    #17
    There are certain things one should definitely avoid, like buying an iMac without an SSD or FD. But those last 10% you pay several $100 for will hardly make a difference 6 years from now.
    If you spend that much for a maxed out iMac, do it because you see use for it in 2016 and 2017, not in 2022.
     
  18. Jackotai macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    #18
    It is not a think, is reality. illustrated by istatmenu.
     
  19. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #19
    that assumes that istatmenu is accurate. That's a big assumption.

    A 5k framebuffer is simply not that big.
     
  20. JeffyTheQuik macrumors 68020

    JeffyTheQuik

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Location:
    Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
    #20
    My subjective evidence has proven otherwise. Mrs. thequik's 2009 computer is much slower than my older (2008 maxed) one.
    It worked then, and works now.

    For those that are talking work computers, I agree with Makrom, but for home computer use, having a computer for 6 years is something I've never done.
     
  21. mildocjr macrumors 65816

    #21
    I've owned 5 AMD graphics cards one being a FirePro (starting back when they were ATI) and every single card failed on me, I personally am waiting for Apple to start shipping NVidia cards again, they outperform their same tier AMD counterpart every time and I've never had one fail on me. I'm not saying AMD is bad, I have a few friends who live on AMD and they're systems work fine, I'm just saying I don't trust their hardware like I do Intel/NVidia setups.
     
  22. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #22
    Since this is a $2k web browsing machine for me, I'm fine with one of the lower end graphics options.

    My CPU is regularaly at 98%-97% idle in iStat Menus.

    Never used a GPU in my life.

    I hate gaming, so that's out of the question.

    I use my computer for Google Chrome.

    For anyone inflating the necessity of one of the GPUs, just remember the highest end current 15 inch MBP has a substantially worse GPU than the 5K iMac, and it's priced at $2500.
     
  23. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #23
    The macbook pro also has substantially worse resolution.
     
  24. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #24
    That's true, and just take a look at the 4K iMac too. Does that thing just not work?

    The M300 series is meant as a higher performance series as a whole.
     

Share This Page